Automated system for analyzing phytotoxicity

ABSTRACT

A system for evaluating the phytotoxicity and/or injury of plants is described. Plants are planted in row sections and a cart is used to pass a radiometric sensor over the row sections. The cart has a radiometric sensor assembly positioned above the row section. Each sensor assembly generates a data signal and a computer receives and stores the data signals. The field cart is positioned above the row sections and measures the existence of plants in the row section and the quantity of vegetation in the row section. Related methods area also described.

RELATED APPLICATION INFORMATION

This application is a divisional application of U.S. patent applicationSer. No. 13/700,303 filed Nov. 27, 2012, which is a 371 of InternationalApplication No. PCT/EP2011/52531, filed Feb. 21, 2012, which claimsbenefit to U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/349,018 filed May 27,2010, and U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/373,471 filed Aug.13, 2010, International Patent Application No. PCT/US2010/046288 filedAug. 23, 2010, the contents of which are incorporated herein byreference herein.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to a system for automated analysis ofplant injury. More specifically, the invention relates to a field cart,a vehicle or a tool bar mobile attachment for a vehicle for use in anautomated system for quickly and accurately measuring plant injury, orphytotoxicity caused by a pesticide or its formulary components, andalso to methods of selecting or eliminating pesticides, or methodselecting or eliminating plant selections based on the automated system.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Agricultural small plot field research trials are designed to measuretreatment effects on the plots. Plot treatment use common chemicalapplication methods including, for example, foliar, soil, drench,in-furrow, and seed treatment. When the treatment is a chemical, like apesticide (such as herbicide, insecticide, fungicide, nematicide, etc.)the measurement is usually taken to detect evidence of deleterious planteffects. Although in some cases, the chemical enhances the plant and themeasurement detects an increased plant quality.

These measurements require extensive, and time consuming visual ratingsof field plots for phytotoxicity or other plant injury such as stuntedgrowth, poor stands or similar measurements. These ratings are then usedin selecting plants with tolerance to a pesticide of interest or testingfor screening pesticidal usefulness on plants. These field ratings arevery time consuming and subjective even when persons with highlyspecialized skill sets are employed. Each plot must be rated formultiple components of herbicide injury, and each component is visuallyrated on a 0 to 100 scale. There is variability in ratings due to theinterval of time required to rate numerous plots, and due to testingindividuals' skill level and individual biases. If plot plant quality iscompromised due to environmental conditions unrelated to the treatment,such as hail, disease, wind, then the plot results are not usefulbecause the intended treatment cannot be accurately measured. Existingprocedures require evaluation of plot phytotoxicity approximately fourto thirty days after applications. Plants are counted or visually scoredfor plant injury and plant death. Plots not meeting minimum qualitystandards are noted for exclusion from further analysis. These ratingswill range from early vegetative to reproductive growth stages. Multipleratings allow for a more detailed understanding of the plant response topesticide injury but existing manual procedures are costly, laborintensive and not always precise.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The invention comprises automated field scanning system used in plantbreeding programs to automate evaluating the phytotoxicity and/or injuryor death of plants, including specifically the evaluation of thephytotoxicity and/or injury of pesticide treated plants in a plantbreeding program.

The invention comprises of a system and a field cart or a toolbar usedin plant selection program to automate evaluating the phytotoxicityand/or injury or death of plants, including specifically the evaluationof the phytotoxicity and/or injury of plants in a program for selectionof transformants, lead events, or plants with introgressed transgenes ortraits. The invention comprises a system and automated field scanningused in a plant screening program to automate evaluating thephytotoxicity and/or injury or death of plants, including the evaluationof the phytotoxicity and/or injury of plants in a program for detectionof silenced, switchable or lost traits which are detectable with axenobiotic application in plants which putatively carry such transgenesor traits. The invention comprises a system and a field cart/toolbarwhich is used in chemical screening programs to automate evaluating thephytotoxicity and/or injury to plants or lack thereof in plants treatedwith different pesticides, mixture(s) of pesticides, rates of pesticideapplication, types of application of pesticides, different devices forpesticide application or any combination of these. In some cases thetreatment my have beneficial effects on the plant. The present pesticidescreening method uses the automated field scanning system to screenpesticides by the evaluation of the phytotoxicity and/or injury ofplants in an automated pesticide screening program.

Broadly, the present invention comprises a system and an automatedsensor tool used to automate evaluating the phytotoxicity and/or injuryor death of plants in agricultural field. In a preferred embodiment, theinvention comprises a system for automating the process of quantifyingplant plot phytotoxicity in agricultural small plot field researchtrials. The system uses active radiometric sensors to measure canopyspectral reflectance per row expressed in NDVI units (normalizeddifference vegetation index). Vegetation readings are separated fromsoil readings and reported as percent vegetation coverage and averageNDVI.

The system automates the process of screening thousands of experimentalplants for plant phytotoxicity or injury. The system also automates theprocess of screening pesticides on thousands of plants for detection ofplant phytotoxicity or injury. Typically, evaluating plant injury is amanual process that relies on several experienced technicians to makeand record hundreds of evaluations per hour. This manual system uses anumerical rating system, for example from one to nine, where one equalsoptimum injury and nine equals plant death. Thousands of plots must bemanually evaluated on a daily basis by multiple technicians. Theevaluations are subjective because of differing biases and amount ofexperience of each technician. A technician can typically evaluatebetween 500 and 1000 plants per hour, or approximately 50 to 100 smallresearch plots per hour.

In one embodiment, the invention provides a system for evaluating theinjury of growing treated plants. The invention is used to evaluate thephytotoxicity and/or injury from pesticide treatment on the plantsgrowing in a field. Apparatus for taking data regarding thephytotoxicity of the plants in the rows are mounted on a field cart foreasy transport in the field. The field cart includes a body supported onwheels above the plant canopy. A radiometric sensor is mounted on thebody of the cart and positioned so that it looks down on a row as thecart is moved through the field. The number of sensors corresponds tothe number of rows of plants that are spanned by the cart so that eachsensor is positioned above a row. As the cart is pushed down theplurality of rows, each sensor assembly collects data from the plants inthe corresponding row and generates a data signal that is received andstored in a computer also mounted on the cart. Preferably, the positionof each plant in each row of the field or range was recorded by GPSapparatus associated with a planter that planted the row and the fieldcart also includes GPS apparatus such that the data generated can becorrelated with the recorded planting position and hence the identity ofthe seed planted at the location for use in a breeding program fordeveloping improved varieties of plants.

Optionally, the field cart or vehicle may include a marking orelimination tool. As the data signal is generated, this signal can becompared with the data signals that are in a range of the result anddetermined to be within or outside of such result range. All datasignals that indicate a plant which is selectable can be marked with anautomated marking system. So the automated marker can mark plants thatare desired or undesirable plants. The plants can be marked with a sprayof color or paint, a tag. flag or label can be used to visually depictthe plants. Alternatively, the plants can be eliminated with a targetedherbicide spray which is automatically activated by the system tocorrelate with the GPS position of the plant, or the plants can be cut,sheared or physically damaged by a mechanical device that is automatedby the by the system to correlate with the GPS position of the plantwhich is not desired.

In another embodiment, the invention provides a method of evaluating apesticide's propensity to have a phytotoxic effect or injure growingplants. The method includes planting a plurality of rowed plots in afield and positioning a mobile field cart above the growing plants. Thefield cart (which can be motorized, manually pushed or operated by pedalpower) includes a body with at least one sensor secured to the body.Each sensor generates a data signal and a computer receives and storesthe data signals. The method also includes the steps of positioning eachsensor above a single row of plants, scanning each plant in each row,transmitting a data signal from each sensor to the computer, and storingthe data signals in the computer. Other aspects of the invention willbecome apparent by consideration of the detailed description andaccompanying drawings.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 is a perspective view of a corn field.

FIG. 2 is a perspective view of a wheeled cart supporting apparatusincluded in the present invention shown spanning two rows of corn in afield.

FIGS. 3-5 are additional perspective views of the cart.

FIG. 6 is another perspective view of the cart shown in corn in a field.

FIG. 7A is a perspective view of a sensor assembly that can be used inthe system.

FIG. 7B shows different view of the sensor shown in FIG. 7A.

FIG. 8 is a graph of the lead event trial—V2 Applications, the y axisshowing the General Phyto percentages at 5 DAT (days after treatment)and the x axis showing the average NDVI at 12 DAT.

FIG. 9. is a graph of the lead event trial—V2 Applications, the y axisshowing the General Phyto percentages at 17 DAT (days after treatment)and the x axis showing the average NDVI at 12 DAT.

FIG. 10 is a graph of the lead event trial—V2 Applications, the y axisshowing the General Phyto percentages at 17 DAT (days after treatment)and the x axis showing the average NDVI at 19 DAT.

FIG. 11 is a graph of the lead event trial—V5 Applications, the y axisshowing the General Phyto percentages at 6 DAT (days after treatment)and the x axis showing the average NDVI at 8 DAT.

FIG. 12 is a graph of trial SG051 showing correlation of 12 DAT NDVI and16 DAT phyto.

FIG. 13 is a schematic diagram of some of the electrical components of asystem of the present invention.

FIGS. 14a-c are photographs of a tractor-mounted embodiment of thepresent invention.

FIG. 15 is a graph of trial SG051 showing correlation of 12 DAT NDVI andYield.

FIG. 16 is a chart of field treatment applications on the lead eventtrials for pesticide resistant soybeans.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

Before any embodiments of the invention are explained in detail, it isto be understood that the invention is not limited in its application tothe details of construction and the arrangement of components set forthin the following description or illustrated in the following drawings.The invention is capable of other embodiments and of being practiced orof being carried out in various ways.

The apparatus and methodologies described herein may make advantageoususe of the Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) system to determine andrecord the positions of fields, plots within the fields and plantswithin the plots and to correlate collected plant condition data, todetermine and record positions of specific plants, to determine andmark, flag or tag specific plants, to determine and dispatch specificplants. Although the various methods and apparatus will be describedwith particular reference to GPS satellites, it should be appreciatedthat the teachings are equally applicable to systems which utilizepseudolites or a combination of satellites and pseudolites. Pseudolitesare ground- or near ground-based transmitters which broadcast apseudorandom (PRN) code (similar to a GPS signal) modulated on an L-band(or other frequency) carrier signal, generally synchronized with GPStime. Each transmitter may be assigned a unique PRN code so as to permitidentification by a remote receiver. The term “satellite”, as usedherein, is intended to include pseudolites or equivalents ofpseudolites, and the term GPS signals, as used herein, is intended toinclude GPS-like signals from pseudolites or equivalents of pseudolites.

It should be further appreciated that the methods and apparatus of thepresent invention are equally applicable for use with the GLONASS andother satellite-based positioning systems. The GLONASS system differsfrom the GPS system in that the emissions from different satellites aredifferentiated from one another by utilizing slightly different carrierfrequencies, rather than utilizing different pseudorandom codes. As usedherein and in the claims which follow, the term GPS should be read asindicating the United States Global Positioning System as well as theGLONASS system and other satellite- and/or pseudolite-based positioningsystems.

FIG. 1 illustrates an agricultural field 25 which has been planted inaccordance with the methods described herein. A planter equipped with ahigh-precision GPS receiver results in the development of a digital mapof the agricultural field 25. The map defined through this operation maybecome the base map and/or may become a control feature for a machineguidance and/or control system to be discussed in further detail below.The map should be of sufficient resolution so that the precise locationof a vehicle within the area defined by the map can be determined to afew inches with reference to the map. Currently available GPS receivers,for example as the ProPak®-V3 produced by NovAtel Inc. (Calgary,Alberta, Canada) are capable of such operations.

For the operation, a tractor or other vehicle is used to tow a planteracross the field 25. The planter is fitted with a GPS receiver whichreceives transmissions from GPS satellites and a reference station. Alsoon-board the planter is a monitoring apparatus which records theposition of seeds as they are planted by the planter. In other words,using precise positioning information provided by the GPS receiver andan input provided by the planter, the monitoring apparatus records thelocation at which each seed is deposited by the planter in the field 25.

As the tractor and planter proceed across field 25 to plant various rowsof seeds, seedlings or crops, a digital map is established wherein thelocation of each seed planted in field 25 is stored. Such a map or otherdata structure which provides similar information may be producedon-the-fly as planting operations are taking place. Alternatively, themap may make use of a previously developed map (e.g., one or more mapsproduced from earlier planting operations, etc.). In such a case, thepreviously stored map may be updated to reflect the position of thenewly planted seeds. Indeed, in one embodiment a previously stored mapis used to determine the proper location for the planting of theseeds/crops.

In such an embodiment, relevant information stored in a database, forexample the location of irrigation systems and/or the previous plantinglocations of other crops, may be used to determine the location at whichthe new crops/seeds should be planted. This information is provided tothe planter (e.g., in the form of radio telemetry data, stored data,etc.) and is used to control the seeding operation. As the planter(e.g., using a conventional general purpose programmable microprocessorexecuting suitable software or a dedicated system located thereon)recognizes that a planting point is reached (e.g., as the planter passesover a position in field 25 where it has been determined that a seedshould be planted), an onboard control system activates a seed plantingmechanism to deposit the seed. The determination as to when to make thisplanting is made according to a comparison of the planter's presentposition as provided by the GPS receiver and the seeding informationfrom the database. For example, the planting information may beaccessible through an index which is determined according to theplanter's current position (i.e., a position-dependent data structure).Thus, given the planter's current location, a look-up table or otherdata structure can be accessed to determine whether a seed should beplanted or not.

In cases where the seeding operation is used to establish the digitalmap, the seeding data need not be recorded locally at the planter.Instead, the data may be transmitted from the planter to some remoterecording facility (e.g., a crop research station facility or othercentral or remote workstation location) at which the data may berecorded on suitable media. The overall goal, at the end of the seedingoperation, is to have a digital map which includes the precise position(e.g., to within a few inches) of the location of each seed planted. Asindicated, mapping with the GPS technology is one means of obtaining thedesired degree of accuracy.

As shown in FIGS. 1 and 2, the field 25 is planted with a plurality ofrows 21 of plants, which in this embodiment are corn plants.

Different varieties of plants may be planted in the field 25 as part ofa pesticide testing or plant breeding or plant selection program toevaluate the phytotoxicity and/or injury of the different varietiesafter treatment of the field. For example, the field 25 may be plantedwith varieties such as sweet corn, soybean, cotton, peanuts, potatoes,canola, wheat, alfalfa, sugar beets, sunflower, rice, sorghum,vegetables, fruits and berries. Plant determination programs such as abreeding program, traited plant selection, a transformant selection,lead event trials or transgenic event selection programs may be set upto determine varieties that are resistant, tolerant, or susceptible to apesticide treatment. Treatment application methods comprise, forexample, foliar, soil, drench, in-furrow, and seed treatment. Thetreatment is a chemical, like a pesticide such as a herbicide,insecticide, fungicide, nematicide, it can also include herbicideadjuvants, safeners, and the like. The pesticide treatment of thesefields can be combined with a wide range of environmental conditions.This allows the automated plant determination programs to evaluate theeffects of the pesticide treatment in various genetic by environmental(G×E interactions) plant situations. For example, the pesticidetreatment can be applied to a field with soil with a high pH which isplanted with control varieties that are not stressed and varieties thatare stressed by elevated pH in the soil to determine the treatmentseffect on stressed varieties. Of course plant resistance, tolerance orsusceptibility to the pesticide treatment across a wide range ofconditions including: soil types, pH, weather, temperature, disease,pest, water, and nutrient pressures, can be evaluated as will be readilyapparent to one of skill in the art. Additionally pesticide treatmentstendency to produce plant injury when plants are growing in such diverseconditions like soil types, weather, temperature, disease, pest, water,pH, and nutrient pressures, can be evaluated as will be readily apparentto one of skill in the art.

The apparatus and methodologies described herein utilize radiometriccrop sensor assemblies 40 that measure the reflectance and absorbance ofone or more frequencies of light by plant tissues. There are two typesof radiometric sensor assemblies 40, active sensor assemblies which useone or more internal light sources to illuminate the plants beingevaluated, and passive sensor assemblies which use ambient light only.One suitable index in assessing crop conditions is the normalizeddifference vegetative index (NDVI). The NDVI was developed during earlyuse of satellites to detect living plants remotely from outer space. Theindex is defined as NDVI =(NIR−R)/(NIR+R) where NIR is the reflectancein the near infrared range and R is the reflectance in the red range butother visual frequencies can be substituted for red. In some embodimentsthe sensors for use with the present invention generate an output thatis in NDVI units.

As shown in FIGS. 2-6, a sensor assembly 40 is the GreenSeeker® RT100sold by NTech Industries (Ukiah, Calif.), now a part of TrimbleNavigation Limited (Sunnyvale, Calif.). In other embodiments, passivesensor assemblies that utilize ambient light are used.

As shown in FIG. 7A and FIG. 7B, a radiometric sensor assembly 40includes a casing 45, a light source 50 mounted in the casing 45, and asensor 55 mounted in the casing 45. In some embodiments, the sensorassembly 40 includes a sensor module including the light source 50 andthe sensor 55 and a control box electrically connected to the sensormodule. In other embodiments, the sensor assembly 40 includes multiplesensors 55 and multiple light sources 50. As explained above, the sensor55 is configured to measure the reflectance and absorbance of one ormore frequencies of light by plant tissues and generate an output inNDVI units.

As shown in FIGS. 2-6, a field cart 60 includes a body 65, a pair ofsensors 40 mounted to the body 65, a computer 75, and a power supply 80.The body 65 includes a substantially rectangular frame 85 supporting aworkspace 90. The body 65 also includes four legs 95, each of the legs95 extending substantially perpendicularly from the frame 85. A wheel100 is mounted to each leg 95 opposite from the frame 85. The fourwheels 100 are grouped as two front wheels and two rear wheels and astwo right-side wheels and two left-side wheels. Optionally, the cart canbe motorized, powered like a bicycle or rickshaw, pushed or pulledmanually or with another vehicle.

Each sensor 40 is secured to the field cart 60. Each sensor 40 iselectrically connected to the computer 75 and is powered by the powersupply 80. In a preferred embodiment, the light source 50 transmits anarrow band of red and infrared light modulated at 50 ms. with thesensor 55 configured to take twenty readings per second.

As shown in FIG. 13, the computer 75 includes a processor 145, a memoryunit 150 electrically connected to the processor 145, a user interface155 electrically connected to the processor 145, a display 160electrically connected to the processor 145, and a GPS system 165electrically connected to processor 145. The GPS system 165 can be astand-alone component or physically integrated with the computer 75. Thesensors assemblies 40 are electrically connected to the processor 145.The computer 75 is electrically connected to the power supply 80. Acomputer software program is used to calibrate, control and record dataof the evaluation. The computer 75 is supported on the workspace 90.Alternatively, a GPS system 165 is not included in the computer 75.

The technician uses the field cart 60 to scan a section of two rows.More sensors could be added to scan more rows, or larger carts can bereadily adapted to scan more rows. During a scan, each sensor assembly40 measures the reflectance and absorbance of one or more frequencies oflight from a plant 20, if any, present in the row section in NDVI units.NDVI values are on a continuous numeric scale between negative one topositive one, where a high number indicates a plant 20 with normalgrowth and a low number indicates a plant 20 that is adversely affectedby the treatment conditions. The measured NDVI values thereforerepresent the injury of the plant 20 evaluated in the row section. Theability to make precise inferences is improved by using a continuousscale compared to the indexed numerical scale used with manualevaluation. The sensors 40 are calibrated to a known standard andprovide consistent readings across an experimental field 25, thusreducing or eliminating the subjective variation across multipletechnicians and the range-to-range, day-to-day variation of eachtechnician. In a preferred embodiment, the row sections can vary inlength but are five feet in this example. Since the sensor 40 takes areading every 50 ms, the number of readings or measurements taken in thefive foot row section obviously depends on the speed the technicianpushes the cart 60, but will typically be between 28 and 34measurements. The average NDVI of the vegetation in the plot includingsoil is recorded, thus giving an objective evaluation of thephytotoxicity of the stand of plants in each plot.

A field 25 is planted using multiple varieties of a selected cropaccording to a planned experiment, preferably using a planter that wasequipped with a GPS device such that the location of each plant 20 isrecorded together with the identity of the variety of seed planted inthe corresponding location. The planting location and identity data isloaded into the computer 75. The computer program is used, together withthe GPS system 165 to record the data gathered by the sensor assemblies40 and associate that data with the location and identity data.

As shown in FIG. 2, a technician pushes the field cart 60 along the rows21 such that a plurality of row sections of each of the two rows 21 passbetween the left-side wheels 100 and the right-side wheels 100. Thetechnician positions the field cart 60 so that the sensors 40 arepositioned one each above a corresponding one of the two rows. Thetechnician then triggers the sensor assemblies 40 to scan. The scan istriggered with the computer program by the user interface 155 and thenthe cart 60 is pushed by the technician down the two rows 21.Alternatively, the scan can be triggered using a switch, a button, orother known methods of generating an electrical signal. Approximatelythirty-five hundred row sections can be screened in an hour using thisautomated method, more can be done with the mechanization of themovement of cart associated with the sensors. Compared to manualmethods, the automated system is more objective and data collection atleast two times faster.

When using a computer 75 without a GPS system 165, the technicianmanually verifies the location of field cart 60 at the start of a groupof rows 21. When the field 25 is planted, a stake is placed in theground at the start of a group of rows 21. A second stake is placed inthe ground at a predetermined forward location. Each stake includes anindividual identifier, for example a number or barcode. As thetechnician pushes the field cart 60 along the group of rows 21, thetechnician uses the stakes to verify the actual position of the fieldcart 60 compared to the expected location of the cart as determined bythe computer program. For example, at the beginning of a group of rows21, the computer program prompts the technician to verify the positionof the field cart 60 using the stake at the beginning of the group ofrows 21. Next, the technician inputs the identifier associated with thestake and positions the field cart 60 above the first two row sections.Then, the technician triggers a scan. The computer program stores thedata from the scan of the first two row sections and associates thatdata with the planned experiment. Then, the computer programautomatically indexes to the next row sections as the cart is advancedby the technician. As the cart 60 nears the second stake, the computerprogram prompts the technician to verify the position of the field cart60 using the second stake. In this manner, the position of the fieldcart 60 in the field 25 is tracked to ensure that the computer programis correctly associating the data collected by the sensor assemblies 40with the preplanned experiment. The technician can use the computerprogram to monitor his position along the group of rows 21 relative tothe stakes. If the field cart 60 is not in the expected position whenthe technician is prompted, the technician can use the computer 75 andcomputer program to correct the error or to identify the ranges 35 thatwere incorrectly associated with the planned experiment. Alternatively,a barcode reader or a radio tag, scanner (for example, an IFRD tagscanner) can be located on the field cart and positioned to read theidentifier associated with the stake. This reading of the identifier canthen automatically trigger the scan. And the data from the scan isassociated with the data from the planned experiment and/or from the GPSsystem. In another embodiment with a more automated system in the fieldthe data collected by the sensor assemblies 40 and the GPS data aremerged and the processed in association with the GIS mask which is madefrom the planter information. This GIS mask filters the merged sensordata and GPS data to summarize data by plot or in some embodiments byplant. The pedigrees and other agronomic plant information about theplants within each plot is associated with a barcode or other taggingsystem where in the summarized plot data can be associated with thepedigree data and stored.

When using a computer 75 including a GPS system 165, the location ofeach row section of plants is automatically determined by the GPS system165 and the data from the sensor assemblies 40 is automaticallyassociated with planned experiment after a scan is preformed.Alternatively, the GPS system 165 determines the location of each rowsection and the computer program automatically indexes to the next rowsection after a scan.

Alternatively, this field cart can be mobilized by addition of a motor,or it can be pulled behind a vehicle such as a truck, tractor, all wheelterrain vehicle, a mower, etc. An embodiment wherein eight sensors 40are mounted on the toolbar of a tractor 170 is illustrated in FIGS.14a-c . Of course, the control components, including, for example, thecomputer 75 and GPS system 165 are also included in the tractor-mountedembodiment. The tractor-mounted embodiment, accordingly, is capable oftaking measurements of one-eight rows simultaneously. The field cart andthe toolbar embodiments are an automated field scanning system.

In operation the invention comprises a system and a field cart used inplant breeding programs to automate evaluating the phytotoxicity and/orinjury or death of plants, including specifically the evaluation of thephytotoxicity and/or injury of plants in a plant breeding program.

The invention also comprises another method of use for this system and afield cart. One method of use for this automated field scanning systemis for plant selection wherein the plants are selected from pesticidetreated locations. Another use for this automated field scanning systemis for screening pesticides for plant effects.

In each method of use the field scanning system automates the evaluationof the phytotoxicity and/or injury or death of pesticide treated plants.When the method is for plant selection the evaluation of thephytotoxicity and/or injury of the plants allows for the selection ofdesirable plants or the elimination of undesirable plants. These plantsare often traited plants, for example, transformants, plants withintrogressed transgenes, plants with different transgenic events, orcombinations of transgenes, plants with mutation(s), or plants withnative traits and any combination of these. If the plants can beselected based on evaluation of the phytotoxicity and/or injury or deathof pesticide treated plants then they can be used in the method of thisinvention.

Another method of use of this system and a field cart is in a plantelimination program. The field scanning system automates the evaluationof the phytotoxicity and/or injury of plants in a program for detectionof silenced, switchable or lost traits which are detectable with axenobiotic application in plants which putatively carry such transgenesor traits. If the plants can be selected based on evaluation of thephytotoxicity and/or injury or death of pesticide treated plants thenthey can be used in the method of this invention.

Yet a further method of use of this system is in a chemical screeningprogram wherein the evaluation of the phytotoxicity and/or injury of thepesticide treated plants allow for the screening of chemicals. Thispesticide screening method uses the field scanning system, whichautomates the evaluation of the phytotoxicity and/or injury of plantstreated with pesticides. In this method of use for pesticide screeningor selection, different treatments protocols can be used in the program;for example, the treatment of the plants can be with differentpesticides, mixtures of pesticides, different rates or timing ofapplication of pesticides, different formulations of pesticides,different method of applying the pesticides. These treated plants arescanned by the sensors to generate data with which to evaluate thephytotoxicity and/or injury of plants in this automated pesticidescreening program.

A field 25 is planted using multiple varieties of a selected crop oralternatively with only one variety of a selected crop according to aplanned experiment, preferably using a planter that was equipped with aGPS device. The GPS device records the planting location in latitude,longitude and experiment range, row coordinates. The planting locationdata is recorded into the computer 75. The planting location is treatedwith the pesticide treatment. Each pesticide treatment is assigned to aspecific planting location. The computer program is used, together withthe GPS system 165 to record the data gathered by the sensor assemblies40. After sensor data is collected it is associated by the computer 75with the previously collected planting location and identity data togenerate a report of sensor data by specific variety and or pesticidetreatment.

EXAMPLE ONE

Evaluation of Plant Injury of Herbicide Resistant Soybean Plants

An experiment was designed to evaluate a new method of use of the systemto measure the tolerance of soybean plants to various herbicidetreatments and timings. A field was planted with a plurality of rows ofsoybeans and each of the rows was divided into a plurality of rowsections. Each of the row sections was planted with soybean seed of apreselected one of the varieties.

A herbicide bicyclopyrone is a HPPD inhibiting herbicide with intendeduse in monocot crops, such as corn. Bicyclopyrone is the compoundrepresented by the formula A10+B52 as presented in U.S. Pat. No.6,838,564. The U.S. Pat. No. 6,838,564 is hereby incorporated byreference. This herbicide has known residual activity in the soil of thefield. In crop rotations the next season plant is often a soybean.Soybeans that are HPPD resistant are herbicide resistant lines. Theresidual activity associated with HPPD-inhibiting herbicides can causedamage to soybean lines without tolerance, direct application ofherbicide can be lethal. This experiment was designed to determine theeffect of various pesticides on HPPD resistant soybeans. This experimentprovides a mechanism to select either events or pesticides forapplication that pose little to no risk when applied to such soybeans,in the same field during subsequent growing seasons.

The following treatments were applied to individual plots for testing.

-   Treatments, 1—Untreated, 2—Callisto 840 gai/ha@ Pre, 3—Balance Pro    420 gai/ha@ Pre, 4—Callisto 420 gai/ha+Balance Pro 210 gai/ha@ Pre,    5—Callisto 105 gai/ha+Induce 0.25% v/v AMS 2.5% v/v @V2, 6—Callisto    210 gai/ha+Induce 0.25% v/v AMS 2.5% v/v @V2, 7—Callisto 420 gai/ha,    +Induce 0.25% v/v AMS 2.5% v/v @V2, 8—Balance Pro 140 gai/ha+Induce    0.25% v/v AMS 2.5% v/v @V2, 9—Balance Pro 280 gai/ha+Induce 0.25%    v/v AMS 2.5% v/v @V2, 10—Callisto 105 gai/ha+Balance Pro 70 gai/ha I    Induce 0.25% v/v AMS 2.5% v/v @V2, 11—Laudis 184 gai/ha+Induce 0.25%    v/v AMS 2.5% v/v @V2, 12—Callisto 105 gai/ha+Laudis 92 gai/ha+Induce    0.25% v/v AMS 2.5% v/v @V2, 13—Impact 150 gai/ha+Induce 0.25% v/v    AMS 2.5% v/v @V2, 14—Callisto 210 gai/ha+Ignite 900 gai/ha+AMS 2.5%    v/v @V2, 15—Ingite 900 gai/ha+AMS 2.5% v/v@V2 fb Ignite 900,    gai/ha+AMS 2.5% v/v @V5, 16—Callisto 210 gai/ha+Induce 0.25% v/v+AMS    2.5% v/v @V5, 17—Callisto 420 gai/ha+Induce 0.25% v/v+AMS 2.5% v/v    @V5, 18—Balance Pro 140 gai/ha+Induce 0.25% v/v+AMS 2.5% v/v @V5-   Brand Name: AI-   Callisto: Mesotrione (HPPD)-   Balance Pro: Isoxaflutole (HPPD)-   Impact: Topramezone (HPPD)-   Laudis: Tembotrione (HPPD)-   Ignite: Glufosinate

Gluphosinate is not classified as an HPPD inhibitor.

“Induce” is an herbicide adjuvant.

The method for use of the present method of use of the automated fieldscanning system permitted these pesticide selections or the eventselection to be made based on automated data collection.

In FIG. 16, a representative sample of the experimental design of thelocations of the soybean plants are shown in the row sections. Thegraphs the average NDVI value which included soil if present was used todetect the tolerance of each row section to a specific herbicidetreatment.

When selecting genetically modified soybean events with tolerance to anherbicide of interest, visual rating of field plots for herbicide injuryrequires a highly specialized skill set and is very time consuming. Eachplot must be rated for multiple components of herbicide injury, and eachcomponent is visually rated on a 0 to 100 scale. There is variability inratings between individuals based on skill level and individual biases.

As is shown in FIGS. 8-11 remote sensing data (NDVI) was collected at 2DAT and 16 DAT from the V2 (V2 stands for 2^(nd) fully expanded leaf andV5 (when used) stands for 5^(th) fully expanded leaf) applications. CropProtection ratings were collected at 4 and 16 DAT from the V2applications. Overall phyto and chlorosis ratings were taken by highlyspecialized technician.

In this trial the NDVI was taken at 12 DAT. As is shown in FIGS. 12 and15 this data was predictive of overall phytotoxicity of plants,especially at 16 DAT and of yield. The correlations between 2 DAT NDVIand 4 DAT visual ratings were poorer than the correlation between 12 DATNDVI and 16 DAT visual ratings because there was significant change inplant injury from 2 to 4 days. This experiment required that automatedNDVI ratings and the manual visual ratings for plant injury be taken onthe same day, to best evaluate the usefulness of the automatedtechnology.

The plants phytotoxicity evidenced less change in plant injury betweenday 12 and 16. This plant injury stability lead to a better correlationbetween visual and automated data collection at the later timing.

The correlation results which allowed automated collection to be usedfor plant selection are shown in FIGS. 8-11. An automated system alsogreatly increases the speed with which ratings can be recorded andallows for someone not skilled in the art of accessing herbicide injuryto take the automated ratings. Ratings can be taken at multiple timepoints after herbicide application, generally from four to thirty daysafter applications. These ratings will range from early vegetative toearly reproductive growth stages. Multiple ratings allow for a moredetailed understanding to of the plant response to herbicide injury.

Plots with the most resistance to an herbicide of interest haveuniformly high NDVI values (0.6 or higher), while plots with poorerherbicide resistance have uniformly lower NDVI values (0.4 or lower).The change in NDVI values over time provides information on how quicklya given plot is recovering from the herbicide application. High NDVIvalues at the time of herbicide injury are also correlated to the end ofseason yield of the plots being evaluated. For example, 12 days aftertreatment, trial SG051 NDVI values of 0.4 equated to 18 bu/ac comparedto an NDVI reading of 0.6 to 0.8 which equaled 30 to 50 bu.ac. at theend of the season.

EXAMPLE TWO Vegetation Indices Used to Measure Plant Condition

Ratios of specific wavelengths of reflected light correlate with thecondition of the plant. NDVI (Normalized Difference Vegetation Index) isthe most common one of many available indices to measure plant conditionby remote sensing. NDVI can be defined as:NDVI=(NIR−V)/(NIR+V)*100

NIR, near infrared=760-900 nm (cellular structure and mass)

V=visual, green 500-600 nm or red 600-700 nm (Photosynthetically activeradiation)

Values from −1 to 1

Low values=non vegetation

Highest values=robust vegetation

Plots with the most resistance to an herbicide of interest haveuniformly high NDVI values, while plots with poorer herbicide resistancehave uniformly lower NDVI values. The change in NDVI values over timeprovides information on how quickly a given plot is recovering from theherbicide application. High NDVI values at the time of herbicide injuryare also correlated to the end of season yield of the plots beingevaluated.

This is a method of pesticide treated plant selection, comprising thesteps of: planting seed of a selected variety of the plant in a rowsection and recording the position of the row section; growing thepesticide treated plants to a selected stage for evaluation ofphytotoxicity and/or injury; collecting radiometric sensor data fromeach row section corresponding to the phytotoxicity and/or injury plantsin the row section; analyzing the sensor data to generate a measure ofthe phytotoxicity and/or injury of the variety of plant in the rowsection; and using the measure of phytotoxicity and/or injury of thevariety as a basis for selecting amongst plants. This selection can bepart of a plant breeding program, an event selection trial, a traitedplant trial, a trait introgression selection or a yield selectionprogram. Once the plants are selected then there is the harvesting seedfrom the selected variety or progeny evidencing the desired plant injurymeasurements which correlates with the yield. The harvested seed can befurther bred with or grown to form progeny plants from harvested seed.These plants should carry the selected trait or event associated withthe pesticide treatment. These traits or events can then be furtherintroduced through marker selected breeding, traditional breeding,haploid/doubled haploid breeding into new plant germplasm.

EXAMPLE THREE

The system of the present invention will be used in an experimentdesigned to evaluate the tolerance of corn to cold temperatures at earlygrowth stages namely at emergence and V3-V4 leaf stage. Data will becollected on plant emergence, plant vigor and plant growth.

EXAMPLE FOUR

Seed treatments protect seeds, seedlings, and whole plants which canresult in better plant stand and more vigorous plants. Rating thesefactors can be somewhat subjective and time-consuming.

The invention will be used to analyze plant vigor in seed treatmentfield trials. Specifically, the automated system will be used toevaluate emergence, early seedling growth, and seedling vigor in anunbiased manner. Currently plant vigor ratings are recorded by visualobservation of the whole plot using a 0 to 100% scale (0% equals deadplants and 100% equals the plot with the highest level of plant vigor).For the percent vigor rating, scientists visually inspect all plotswithin a replication and assign a value of 100% to the plot with thehighest level of plant vigor. All other plots are rated relative to thisplot. This visual rating system is a subjective overall rating and thedata are difficult to analyze. The present invention will help uscollect quantitative and objective data for individual plants.

Direct damage from pests is also commonly rated in seed treatmenttrials. Currently, the proportion of damaged plants within a given areaare assessed by rating the total number of plants and also rating thetotal number of damaged plants within that area. This is a quantitativerating but it is time-consuming and only a limited area can be assessed.This invention will provide the opportunity to rate a larger area whichwill increase precision.

What is claimed is:
 1. A method for screening for pesticides, comprisingthe steps of: (a) applying a pesticide treatment to planted plants; (b)collecting planting location and identity data corresponding to plantedplants; (c) collecting sensor data readings from the plants using asystem comprising (i) a vegetative sensing apparatus for generating adata signal comprising sensor data corresponding to evidence of thephytotoxicity and/or injury of a plant, said plant having been subjectedto a pesticide treatment; (ii) a scanning system for transporting thesensing apparatus over a section of plants; (iii) a location determiningapparatus on the scanning system to generate location information of thevegetative sensing apparatus, said generated location information beingconfigured for correlating the data signal to a section in which saidplant is growing; and (iv) a computer arranged for: receiving andstoring the data signal associated with phytotoxicity and/or injury ofsaid plants; loading a correlation between a planting location, and anidentity of a plant at the planting location into said computer; andassociating the sensor data with the planting location and the plantidentity using the generated location information, wherein said sensordata corresponds to evidence of the phytotoxicity and/or injury of aplant; (d) generating a measure of the plant injury for the pesticidetreatment plants; and (e) associating the collected sensor data with theplanting location and identity data to generate a report of sensor databy specific variety and/or pesticide treatment.
 2. The method of claim1, wherein applying the pesticide treatment includes applying as a seedtreatment, a foliar treatment, a soil treatment or an in furrowtreatment.
 3. The method of claim 1, wherein applying includes applyingformulations of pesticidialy active ingredients.
 4. The method of claim1, wherein at least some of the pesticide treated plants comprisetransgenic plants, traited plants, or plants with mutations.
 5. Themethod of claim 1, wherein the vegetative sensing apparatus comprises aradiometric crop sensor assembly for measuring reflectance andabsorbance of one or more frequencies of light by plant tissue.
 6. Themethod of claim 5, wherein a sensor of the radiometric crop sensorassembly is configured to generate an output in normalized differencevegetative index (NDVI) units.
 7. The method of claim 6, wherein saidplants are growing in row sections and wherein the radiometric cropsensor assembly comprises a plurality of sensors positioned such thatduring operation each sensor is positioned above a different row.
 8. Themethod of claim 1, wherein the location determining apparatus includes aglobal positioning satellite (GPS) system.
 9. The method of claim 1,further including marking plants with a marking tool, wherein markingincludes marking plants that are desired or undesired plants, whereinthe system is configured to compare the generated data signal with adata signal range to determine whether the generated data signalcorresponds to the desired or undesired plant, the system being furtherconfigured to automatically control the marking tool in accordance withan outcome of said comparison.
 10. The method of claim 1, furthercomprising eliminating plants, wherein eliminating includes cutting,shearing, physically damaging, or applying a herbicide to a plant,wherein the system is configured to compare the generated data signalwith a data signal range to determine whether the generated data signalcorresponds to a desired or undesired plant, the system being furtherconfigured to automatically control an elimination tool in accordancewith an outcome of said comparison for eliminating.
 11. The method ofclaim 1, wherein collecting sensor data readings from the plants isimplemented in a field cart, a vehicle, or a toolbar mobile attachmentfor a vehicle.
 12. The method of claim 1, wherein the computer isfurther arranged to generate a report of sensor data by specific plantvariety and/or pesticide treatment.